As Megan McArdle says, once the government becomes a major player in the healthcare market, it will face increased pressure to control the prices of inputs, from pharmaceutical to doctors and nurses. This will accelerate the governmental control over the healthcare market, and despite the protestations of Obama et al that their current plan stops short of that, they propose no mechanism for preventing such meddling. (Of course, many Obamacare supporters would prefer a single-payer system, but I’m talking to those who are wary of it.)
Designing an effective and credible obstacle to taking the next step beyond Obamacare towards “NHS-style ‘socialized medicine’” is a nontrivial task. Maybe it’s possible. But until somebody proves to me that is possible, I for one intend to continue opposing taking the first step.
And so, I ask those in favor of Obama’s plan, your leader claims that government interference in healthcare markets will not go past being a mere payer. Very well, let’s give that assurance some teeth: what mechanism would you propose to prevent increased government intrusion into healthcare once it takes a hand in being a third-party-payor. And no, “That’s ridiculous and would never happen” is not a valid mechanism.
Why should there be any such “guarantee”? If the public decides that it wants to go for “NHS-style ‘socialized medicine’”, then that’s what should happen.
Ah, but part of the selling point for Obama’s proposal is that it will not lead to a slippery slope. He makes these assurances over and over. Which is all well and good rhetorically - and is necessary to get the majority on board - but right now there’s no credible reason to believe it.
Again, you, Der Trihs, may not be against such an outcome, but lots of people are, and they need convincing before anything gets passed. And it would be more convincing if those pleasant promises had any teeth.
Should, but it’s not practical so the point is moot. National health care on the other hand IS achievable, and better than what we have now. It’s what we have now with our free market fetish that is the wild self indulgence, not NHC.
On CNN tonight there was a comparison of satisfaction with health care and life expectancy in various developed nations. Japan, Switzerland, Spain, France, Canada and several others all had life expectancies higher than the US. The poll showed 90% of Canadians are satisfied with their health care system.
If the slippery slope leads to a result like Canada, would that be so bad?
There’s no way to make such a guarantee. Even if it were specifically written into the very Constitution of the United States, there are always amendments.
I don’t know your politics aside from this issue, but how is this any different from any governmental action. “Supporters of the Iraq war, what’s to prevent Bush from going after Canada next?” “Supporters of tax cuts, what’s to prevent taxes being cut to zero and the government going bankrupt?” Etc.
Is there any way any government could be curtailed if its citizens choose not to curtail it?
Because the people who come here have the money to buy what they need. The more typical people who stay home find our system horrifying, not to mention difficult to believe.
America is this thing called a “democracy” and the people can vote for representatives who vote on issues according to the wishes and needs of their constituents. Didn’t they cover this in your education? Conservatives are over-represented due to the way Senators and Congressmen are apportioned.
But what assurances do you have that Obama won’t make your daughter sleep with black men, and put Jesse Jackson on Mt Rushmore, and take away your guns? I guess it comes down to whether you have the votes and can make good arguments. Do you want more assurances than I had that I wouldn’t have to do a Nazi salute to Cheney? If so, pound sand.
I don’t see how this is true. We are a democratic republic with laws. Are the laws bad because some are forcing people into something they don’t like? What exactly do you envision UHC forcing you into.
He can make all the promises he likes about his own behavior, but he can say nothing about anyone else’s. Just as I can’t go to the American people and guarantee that you will say the word “purple” in your next post but I can guarantee I won’t.
You’re asking for the impossible. There are no guarantees possible in any aspect of life, and the slope in this case is no more slippery than in the case of any of the government powers or programs or beliefs that you hold sacred.
Obama can say, “I’m not going to take it further” and you can believe him or not (why do I get the feeling it’s not? ) but that’s all you’ve got.
It means that you (general you) can’t be blase about who gets elected because they will have the power as they always have had to fuck your shit right up.
Well it seems to me that this UHC is going to happen no matter what. People can call in to their elected leaders and bitch until they are blue in the face, but at the end of the day these democrats and republicans are going to vote how they are told to vote by their superiors.
If people are trying to help the poor out then our government and our president needs to help them without tramping over other people that do no need UHC. Why do they have to throw EVERYONE into this thing one way or another?
Show me exactly where Obama says this. Obama says he is not proposing an elimination of private options or single payer. Where has he said this step can’t and won’t eventually lead to a single payer program. That would be a stupid thing for a smart man to say. If , at some point in the future, single payer seems like a good option for this society, why shouldn’t we be able to choose that? If it never seems like a good option then so be it.
I have a question. Why , specifically, should people be afraid of the possibility of a single payer program like so any of our fellow democracies have?
) but that’s all you’ve got.